# C_2019280EN.01001602.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV

(Case C-221/19)

(2019/C 280/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

Party to the main proceedings

AV

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

| 2. | In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27.

---